The Role of Background Conversations in Facilitating the Work of Change Agents - Coursework Example

Role of Bасkgrоund Соnvеrsаtiоns in Fасilitаting the Work of Сhаngе Аgеnts Student’s Name: Institution: Role of Bасkgrоund Соnvеrsаtiоns in Fасilitаting the Work of Сhаngе Аgеnts Introduction As a process, change incorporates the invention of habitual behaviors, incidents and other smaller processes that overlie one another, eventually giving way to each other. In consequence, these processes have an effect on the lives of the members of an organization. This is due to the fact that organizations are constantly re-engineered, reorganized, downscaled, benchmarked, evened out and subjected to numerous other processes (micro and macro) intended at altering the manner in which things are done (Jabri, 2012). Change is a painful and difficult to accept process. Consider the insecurity that members of staff feel on the realization that the organization they work for is in the process of downsizing, a fact that could render them redundant. Consider the amount of challenges faced by employees when their organization forms a merger with another organization. Finally, consider the stress levels experienced by workers who suddenly require making use of a new advanced gadget or process to carry out their day to day activities. All these are examples of change in a workplace setting, each within its own context. Each process of change is entrenched in its own context, a fact that ensures that the particular change gets accomplished within its particular context (Abbey, 2010). Organizational change, in spite of size and intensity, requires the skills of one or more change agents. Lunenburg (2010) defines a change agent as any individual with the power and skills to inspire as well as harmonize the efforts and procedures of the change process. These may be either internal or external, with the success of the change effort heavily depending on the eminence and workability of the relationship existing between change agents and key decision makers in the firm. Internal agents consist of the management or regular employees selected and charged with the responsibility of overseeing the process of change. This is a move mainly used by innovative driven organizations. External agents are sourced from outside the organization, and mainly include consultants and change experts (Jabri, 2012). This article shall discuss the role of background conversations in facilitating the work of change of change agents. Background Conversations and Change Agents One would be tempted to ask “Why conversation and change? What is the connection between the two?” Individuals, groups and communities have always made use of stories, narratives and conversations to understand the universe and their place in the universe. The narratives have been entrenched with the power that explains and justifies the status quo, while at the same time, power that makes changes urgent and imaginable (Abbey, 2010). Myriad research studies carried out with a view of understanding organizational change have looked into the importance of conversation and storytelling as a factor of organizational change. This has brought into the light the fact that narratives aren’t simply in vivo works of art, but deeply mixed up in every aspect of organizational life (Andrew et.al 2009). The research studies have, in turn, disapproved the notion that narratives are a preoccupation of literary theorists as opposed to being a concern of real social scientists. A close focus on narratives naturally directs a person to an array of themes, including fictionality, voice and intertextuality among others, all of which are suffused with immense power. In similarity with life, storytelling and conversation cuts across all cultures, all histories and all nations with the definition of recounting past events. Lately, there has been a linguistic turn across social sciences which include organizational studies. This move has certainly witnessed significant interest in storytelling and conversation, especially owing to the fact that these narratives are linked to issues of identity and power, communication, sense making and knowledge. In totality, there is a general understanding that within organizations, people individually and collectively tend to lead storied lives. Like change, leading storied lives is inevitable in any organization and this forms the basis on which conversation and change are built (Brown & Humphrey, 2006). Whether conceived as characteristic of organizations or constituting the processes of organizing, narratives are a fundamental composition of any complete analysis of organizational being (Sims et.al, 2009). Both stories and change have the temporality aspect as a core notion. In addition, both are concerned with understanding, describing and explaining intricate procedures whereby several personalities, agents, backgrounds and occurrences tend to overlap and intertwine in uncertain and ambiguous ways. In the organizational context, stories/ conversations could be interpreted as constituting, mapping, inspiring, directing, upsetting, inhibiting or promoting change. However, they are an integral feature of developmental patterns, always evoking actual futures as well as possible worlds. Conversations are the means through which top executives manage their businesses, and also the means through which the subordinates resist. They inhabit boardrooms as well unmanaged interstitial spaces where those groups affected by power convey their fantasies and their anxieties (Humphrey & Brown, 2009). In many instances, organizational change is viewed as a multi storied procedure of different competing accounts. This means that there are different groups of people, and therefore, the stories that each group tells is contrary to the other groups’ story. For this reason, a change agent needs to be in a position to understand how the different and opposing conversations people have integrate, or react to those of adjacent groups. In analysis, the comparative positioning of the parties holding the conversations may appear dialogue like-in nature despite the stories being self sealed in reality. For this reason, none of the groups hears the conversations made by the adjacent groups, thus, making them monological in nature as opposed to being dialogical. Monological conversations run in parallel with minimal, if any, engagement (Brown et.al. 2009). A situation like this must awaken a change agent’s attention. Burke et.al (2009), state that in a bid to redirect constant change, one must be sensitive to conversation, dialogue and discussion. They argue that dialogue has the ability to allow groups with adjacent views to develop a common set of meanings as well as a shared thinking process. In this context, dialogue is defined as interaction whose main focus is on thinking processes, and the manner in which they are performed based on past experience. The change agent must consistently endeavor to acquire new information by creating conversation with a party of differing concept from theirs. Acquisition of new information leads to cognitive restructuring. Jabri (2012) reinforces this by stating that the most powerful interventions of change take place at the level of daily conversation. In this context, the kind of conversation that triggers strategic change must be vocal, reciprocative, issue-oriented, imaginative, rational and honest. The author goes ahead to state that it’s only through the use of prescribed speech acts that change agents can produce change. These speech acts include requests or commands, allegations or assertive, assurances or commissives, animated messages conveying sentimental state, and declarations announcing new operational realities. These acts take place in diverse combinations which in turn constitute various conversations; understanding, change performance and closure. A different perspective of conversation, storytelling and narratives on strategic organizational change presents itself as a practice of creative performance. Conversation empowers the parties by allowing them the opportunity to contest principal discussions of organizational changes. In addition, they afford the opportunity to emphasize on the powerfulness as well as the creativity of the subjects under discussion (Andrew et.al. 2009). Storytelling and dialogue allow workers to broaden the scope of experiences they have had at their places of work, while at the same time, constructing and disrupting fantasies they may have regarding themselves, their work and the organization. Stories and conversations about change serve the crucial purpose of empowering encounters that shock individuals, their work as well as their places of work. The concept goes further to suggest that the storytellers experience a sense of lack that triggers creativity and powerfulness in a bid to seek for answers that they may never find. This is a crucial aspect for the change agent to take note especially because they are able to pick up and identify the gaps in the organization (Burke et.al 2009). To ensure that this happens smoothly, Abbey (2010) emphasizes on the need for a strong relationship between the change agent and the people they serve in the organization. Individuals or groups in the workplace will not grow if there is lack of trust in the person enforcing the changes to them. Trust is built when the people being served know that the change agent shall deal with the issues at hand without fear of doing the right thing. Trust promotes conversation and none of the parties is afraid to voice their innermost feelings and opinions. Based on the myriad research studies carried out and the resultant reports written regarding change and narratives, it is evident that some of the narratives are not merely aimed at representing or making sense of the reality. Like other types of narratives, fictional or otherwise, these are crucial elements of culture charged with the responsibility of generating and supporting the realities embraced by social actors (Schabracq, 2007). According to Brown et.al. (2009), narratives of resistance in organizations constitute resistance, whereas narratives of insult constitute oppression. Leaders and other business executives could trigger organizational or social change by formulating an appropriate narrative aimed at unfreezing boundaries, opening up possibilities or even stimulating commitment of the workers. Not much attention has been dedicated to those narratives aimed at inhibiting change. These often mean to discredit similar change attempts made in the past, with little or no significant results. For instance, a phrase sounding like “This is exactly the same way we tried X. We all know what the results of that were!” is a clear story of blocking attempts to make changes. The phase could be an intervention used in social or political situations seeking to emphasize or challenge other narratives, while consolidating or undermining other particular interests. To shed more light on the above, Sims et al. (2009) states that other narratives, however, are attempts made at sharing knowledge from experiences made by the organization or by other people. For this reason, narratives and conversation are especially crucial when there is excess information with inadequate meaning, thus making them a vital currency of practice communities. In such instances, change agents must identify these aspects in performing their duties. As stated earlier, change agents are charged with the responsibility of aligning, fitting or adapting organizations through various interventions to a reality that exists on the opposite side of the intervention. In this instance, the conversations to either block or instigate change assists the change agents achieve their goal. They do this by assessing the types of conversations, and gauging their overall importance to the organization. In this way, they are able to determine what the organization needs and this makes it easy to generate, sustain and complete conversations that will make the changes easier to absorb and assimilate in the organization (Spector, Merrill & Bishop, 2014). References Abbey, G.P. (2010). Making Sense of Organizational Change: A Storytelling Approach. A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of Bath. School of Management. Brown, A.D., Gabriel, Y. & Gherardi, S. (2009). Storytelling and Change: An Unfolding Story. Organization. 16 (3), 323-333 Burke, W.M. et.al. (2009). Organizational Change: A Comprehensive Reader. Wiley & Sons Driver, M. (2009). From Loss to Lack: Stories of Organizational Change as Encounters with Failed Fantasies of Self, Work and Organization. Organization 16(3) xx–xx Humphreys, M. & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of Organizational Identity and Identification: A Case Study of Hegemony and Resistance. Organization Studies. 23 (3):421–47 Jabri, M. (2012). Managing Organizational Change: Process, Social Construction and Dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan Lunenburg, F.C. (2010). Managing Change: The Role of the Change Agent. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration. 13 (1). 1-6. Rhodes, C. & Brown, A.D. (2005). Narrative, Organizations and Research. International Journal of Management Reviews. 7 (3). 167-188 Schabracq, M.J. (2007). Hanging Organizational Culture: The Change Agent’s Guidebook. John Wiley & Sons Sims, S. D. Huxam, C. & Beech, N. (2009). On Telling Stories but Hearing Snippets: Sense-taking from Presentations of Practice. Organization 16(3) xx–xx Spector, M.J., Merrill, M.D., & Bishop, M.J. (2014). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer Science + Business Media New York Read More